zombiefandomcom-20200223-history
User talk:Griever0311
Welcome Hi, welcome to Zombiepedia! Thanks for your edit to the Weapons page. Please leave a message on my talk page if I can help with anything! -- Philodox (Talk) 09:25, February 4, 2010 power armorDUH Dear Griever0311, Did you know that 89% of all newbs would rather put extra numbers in their names instead of coming up with something original? Now on to the *real* point, armor is any form of protection no matter if it's Kevlar, which doesn't stop most things bigger than a 9mm without luck, or if it's military grade airplane ballistic plastic which makes more sense to wear because it's military grade. you make the point that it's made by a crazy canadian guy. well kevlar may have been made by a woman, but the man who perfected it was from chicago which is worst than canada, and the man who perfected it did the same shoot me thing as hurtubise. You must be confused with his T-type armor which was gaudy, but his Trojan-s type armor is much different than the t-type, as it lacks most of the vestigal knickknacks of the first. He's is not rich he mearly makes money from great inventions the capitalist way, which brings up the truly horrific idea of you being a communist Ex-marine with emotional issues. Nw it is possible for any of the branches of the military to splinter and become paramilitary or militant, even the airforce, even more so due to their almost forced higher education standards would allow them to keep a small city up and running if a few have knowledge of engineering, which is very possible as it is quite popular nowadays. Now i looked at the redman armor which if it was anything like a fullbody military armor of which i speak it wouldn't be that easy to aquire not even by police, to put it simply it is little more than a overpriced use american gladiator costume. as for the article being highly chopped by you, i dont remember you chopping anything. My article wasn't deleted because it was bad it was deleted because it lacks connection to the main idea of the WIKI, it was my fault i thought that like wikipedia when you created a side article to something only talked about in a paragraphs is a general article you should speak of it logically with factual real world background instead of what it has to do with a small part o a large subject. For instance me explaining power armor logically from a real world scientific point of view after speaking about it briefly in a article about armor would help one understand how it would actually help, appearantly i didn't put the word zombie in it enough. which to say whould be like tasting ketchup or mustard while eating a hamburger it makes it better, but getting rid of it because them because they have nothing to do with cows despite the fact that cows arent the only kind of food out there and most certainly aren't the best food, so if the cow doesn't want the ketchup on it' soon to become a hamburger ass i will respect that but realize that alot of people like katchup alot and alot of people have the cunning to make there own with my two favorite words, logic and reasoning. By the way lets assume you are a marine and not a 15 year old virgin, what kind of marine uses the term "lol" i've got five uncles three in the marines and one in the army and another in the air force. not only that but i know 3 other non-related people who were in the military, 2 of them special forces. my godfather is a green baret, and because of all this i know that only two kinds of people talk about the military like it was a game Fakers and peopel that haven't seen action, which one are you ? Oh and of course there's no panUSAF fullbody suit, but it is in testing for the u.s. army. i can see how you wouldn't know that from the fact that they give the army the future force program, and all they give the marines is MCMAP otherwise known as, we're too bullheaded to use any thing too asian so lets make shit up. plus full body armor has nothing to do with power armor, douchbag. and unlike you i sign my posts and dont try to be anonymous. Gwyllgi 04:38, May 13, 2010 (UTC) Weapons Edit - Semi Auto Jamming Hello. I'm glad someone who knows more about firearms than I do is contributing to this wiki. I encourage all attempts to use your knowledge to be constructive and educational, as I surely admit I don't know everything. However, I don't appreciate the insinuation that I should not have posted the bit about semi autos almost always jamming when pressed against their target, and that I don't know what I'm talking about. I admit, I may be wrong about it, but there is a difference in plainly (and respectfully) saying that, and using an inflammatory tone as you did. Especially when the edit you made still pretty much advises the same thing as my initial statement - it only adds a mysterious clause "unless you have a proper attachment". This does not inform myself (to be a better editor) or the public (in case they, for some terrible reason, need to know these sorts of things) about this attachment, how to identify it, and how available it may be in this sort of scenario. Indeed, the same logic can be used when telling someone "Don't shoot a gun, because then the rest of the Zombies will hear you". Despite the existance of silencers, the statement is still true for 98% of practical situations, so I don't think it's very helpful (to your audience or fellow editors) to interject a counter situation in a belittlling sort of way - and not elaborate on it. Please notice that I haven't, and don't intend to revert the article - your edit didn't really change the accuracy in any signifigant way. But I respect your seemingly superior background in firearms, so I'll defer to your judgment, and accept your phrasing. I hope we can come to an understanding on this issue and a mutual respect. Also, to show you that I didn't grab this statement out of thin air, I spent over an hour tracking down the source I retrieved it from - an article by a highly experienced gun owner, historical firearms lecturer, competitive shootist and owner of a large gun store in Pennsylvania. The journal itself is used as a reference hundreds of times on wikipedia. http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/103725 http://www.americanchronicle.com/authors/view/4047 Cheers -- Philodox 00:34, February 5, 2010 (UTC) re: Misconstrued Good info. I started looking into it a bit. So then would it be accurate to say "If it doesn't have a standoff device, discharge when flush against a target will "probably" jam the next round?" I understand an assault rifle has a totally different venting system on the muzzle, so sure, those semi auto weapons aren't really in this discussion - just handguns. Anyway, no harm, no foul. Hey, you might have noticed I have a draft of a handgun article I'm working on in my talk page. We had alot of interest and discussion on What is the best handgun to kill a zombie. So I thought I'd do some research, and see if I could come up with something interesting. Feel free to throw your two cents on there as far as your choices, and what you think of some of those. I probably won't have it up till next week, but I'm trying to inform, and do all the popular models justice. Also, I trust you found us through the COD blog post? E-mail me through the "email this user link" on the left side of my talk page if you want to exchange steamIDs, and play online sometime - that is, if you have it on PC. ---- Thanks Thanks for the help on the M16 stuff. I thought we were further off base than that. — [[User:Philodox|'<<— ''Philodox —>>']] talk 18:59, April 2, 2010 (UTC) Cannister M203 Hey Griever. On my talk or user page, you should be able to email me (left hand side, like where Special Pages is). Email me with your email addy, or some other way I can reach you privately. I wanna send you the passage from World War Z that summarizes why zombies are nearly immune to grnade and artillery fire. I know it sounds crazy from your vantage point, but as I try to summarize on our article on Hydrostatic Shock, zombie blood (supposedly) turns to ultra-stiff ballstics gel, so that they are very explosive resistant. From an author's standpoint, it's actually a very good idea, as far as strengthening the zombies to be a realistic threat against modern weapons. Can't carpet bomb them, can't nuke them. Need precise skull penetration and nothing else. Normally, I would just post it, but if you don't have it already, I can send you the entire book, but I won't post that URL on these pages out of respect for the source material. Don't want just anyone having it without buying it, ya know? K thanks. — [[User:Philodox|'<<— Philodox —>>']] talk 05:06, April 4, 2010 (UTC) re: Congealed Blood, and Zombie Realism First off, having trouble envisioning the M576 cannister. So instead of a grenade, it's solid like a shotgun slug? Second, I agree with what you are saying about the realism problem. Scientifically speaking, the biological transformation Brooks depicts has no precedent. Brooks does have alot of place where, despite his claims that he did extensive research on all of the many areas he covers, quite frankly, some parts are critically flawed. I conceed all of these things. But there are good reasons why the Anti-Hydrostatic Shock notion has to remain unchallenged. The first is that if artillery or bombing does work, then quite frankly, there is never a zombie invasion that threatens all mankind. It'll threaten areas that get sealed off as a quarantine, then abandoned and bombed to smithereens, but no amount of zombies will ever threaten a modern military if they can't rise/crawl out of a crater that would be fatal to the living because it liquifies their organs, or just hits the "off-button" on the human nervous system. It would greatly shorten the length of the book, and the dramatic impact. Considering that zombie fiction is known for it's absurdity, I think Brooks should be allowed to get away with this one - it's still the most realistic zombie fiction ever (yes, even more than 28 Days Later. Total bodily transformation seconds after contact? Come on...) Another reason is that even though some would say that Brooks' ideas are overrated, this wiki is the #1 search engine result for most of the offical particulars of his works. Searches for Brooks's terms build the backbone of our traffic, so even though we won't be slavishly devoted to his work as canon... well.. ''slavishly ''is the key word I'd shy away from. So the way it works is that Brooks' Solanum Virus transforms blood into a substance with nigh-supernatual insulatory properties. Between that, and the total lack of thorasic pressure (they can walk the ocean depths without popping from the pressure - an even bigger scientifc stretch I realize), this creates a literary foe that can do all the things that Brooks (and fans) want the zombies to be able to do. It also makes melee combat more conceivable, as because the blood clumps, it doesn't really splatter, so the rates for infecting yourself by splattering their blood is minimal. Fun fun fun. Still, I have been thinking about starting an article about the various inaccuracies in the ZSG and WWZ, but I honestly don't know enough. For the most part, it passes my BS meter. In researching for my handguns article, I found a few people rattle on about what Brooks was wrong on, but I haven't been able to find it again. So if you find down time (less likely since becoming a CODWiki admin, I'd imagine), feel free to make the article, or just shoot me the cliff notes and I'll do it. — [[User:Philodox|'<<— Philodox —>>']] talk 17:39, April 4, 2010 (UTC) We hate Communists, maybe we can build on top of that http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbwZada9uM0&feature=related Only a nasty Communist could not laugh at this. 22:12, April 4, 2010 (UTC) Sup What's up. I know I already said this but happy birthday. The zombie wiki is very interesting Codfan re: Cliffnotes and Weapons All great info, man. I haven't had time to thumb through it, or do much of anything on zombiepedia since my e-mail to you. Things have been hectic in the old personal life. Should settle down soon though. Very much appreciated, and most, if not all will be transcribed where appropriate. — [[User:Philodox|'<<— Philodox —>>''']] talk 04:01, April 7, 2010 (UTC) Alright I'm here, and the task force blog is up. It's the weapons and vehicles articals that need help right? What were those major changes you were talking about? I'm sure spliting up the wapons, tactics, and transportation pages are a few. Dolten 21:10, April 20, 2010 (UTC) Holy shit this guy needs a brain smashing. So we basicly have to redo the wiki in it's entirty? Guess I'd better get started. link=:User:Dolten 00:44, April 21, 2010 (UTC) If I'm not mistaken, we have a rifles page right? If so I'll take the info from the ones I created and switch them over the the Rifles page. 03:20, April 26, 2010 (UTC) My first big fix I asked Philodox if I should split Weapons into- Automatic Rifles - Semi-Automatic Rifles - Bolt and Lever-Action Rifles - Semi-Automatic Pistols - Revolvers - Machine Pistols - Black Powder Light/Medium Machine Guns - Heavy Machine Guns - Miniguns - Break-action Shotguns - Pump-action and Lever-action shotguns Semi-automatic Shotguns - Automatic Shotguns - Submachine Guns (PDW's will be within it) - Bows (Crossbows will be included) Sling - Slingshot - Throwing Knives (Shuriken will be part of it) - Blowgun (Debatable) - Flechettes Bludgeons (Could be split up more) - Random Items Slashing & piercing weapons (Same as Bludgeons) - Pole weapons - (Pickaxes, Axes, Hatchets, and Bearded Axes should be put in one page) Chainsaws - Explosives - Incendiary and Laser Weapons Let me know what you think. 02:22, April 21, 2010 (UTC) Your Userpage I fixed your userpage after I saw some vandal messed it up in the recent changes feed. He will get banned when I notify Philodox. Rambo362 18:11, June 23, 2010 (UTC) ::Fixed it again. Man, someone has it out for you today.Rambo362 18:22, June 23, 2010 (UTC) ::The vandal was Gwyllgi, just a heads-up. 23:12, June 28, 2010 (UTC)